Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

One of my fave pics of a scientist is certainly not looked down on, maybe they should promote the history of this lady rather than piss and moan as you so like to remind us that men apparently do.

The history would be a good step alright. What they've actually chosen to do is challenge the stereotype by highlighting innovation by women in the here and now. I can't say I object to that.

In reality if you saw a show about the history of women in science, far from applauding it, wouldn't you also consider it sexist? "Where's he show about the history of men in science etc."

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The history would be a good step alright. What they've actually chosen to do is challenge the stereotype by highlighting innovation by women in the here and now. I can't say I object to that.

In reality if you saw a show about the history of women in science, far from applauding it, wouldn't you also consider it sexist? "Where's he show about the history of men in science etc."

They haven't challenged anything because there is no stereotype as I've mentioned previously its their own fault pushing women away from STEM.

You are a very intelligent person El Duderino but you are frustrating to deal with because you see what you want to see and refuse to see whats actually happening.

Iseedeadpixels

Owryan wrote: »

Really? Exaggeration much?

Married father's have rights, unmarried father's have rights.

Unmarried have very little rights its also still not a stereotype which was his reply to post divorce/seperation care.

Owryan

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Unmarried have very little rights its also still not a stereotype which was his reply to post divorce/seperation care.

Unmarried father's can get automatic guardianship rights within specified circumstances, or they can get them through the courts.

Unless you mean they should get them automatically without any regards to circumstances.

You said fathers have no rights, i said they do.

Iseedeadpixels

Owryan wrote: »

Unmarried father's can get automatic guardianship rights within specified circumstances, or they can get them through the courts.

Unless you mean they should get them automatically without any regards to circumstances.

You said fathers have no rights, i said they do.

Specified circumstances.....so the mother must be a criminal etc. Mothers who are addicts and down right scumbags are winning in court against stable working fathers, its almost like having no rights, if my ex wished she could deny me access, yet if I told her I'm not bringing my son back I would be arrested.

Owryan

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Specified circumstances.....so the mother must be a criminal etc. Mothers who are addicts and down right scumbags are winning in court against stable working fathers, its almost like having no rights, if my ex wished she could deny me access, yet if I told her I'm not bringing my son back I would be arrested.

No. If the father lived with the mother for a year at the time of the birth then he gets guardianship.
Actually it's 9 months before and 3 after.

I had to go the court route to get joint custody of my kids myself.

The law is simple, mother's get automatic guardianship, father's get it under specific circumstances but can get it by other means. There are specific reasons it discriminates on automatic guardianship for all unmarried father's.

As regards access/custody things are slowly changing. Joint custody is now becoming the default agreement unless there are compelling reasons not to grant it. But there is still a major block in how judges award levels of contact in Ireland.

Calhoun

Owryan wrote: »

No. If the father lived with the mother for a year at the time of the birth then he gets guardianship.
Actually it's 9 months before and 3 after.

I had to go the court route to get joint custody of my kids myself.

The law is simple, mother's get automatic guardianship, father's get it under specific circumstances but can get it by other means. There are specific reasons it discriminates on automatic guardianship for all unmarried father's.

As regards access/custody things are slowly changing. Joint custody is now becoming the default agreement unless there are compelling reasons not to grant it. But there is still a major block in how judges award levels of contact in Ireland.

Its not there yet, the dogs on the street know that. On another Irish forum before Christmas a guy put up a post looking for advice, he was not allowed have access in his current place of residence over the Christmas period as it did not meet required standards.

The reason he couldn't get a better place to live was due to having to pay the old mortgage, rent and maintenance.

The courts and most of the Irish public system (including hospitals) are inherently and have a bias that favors the woman.

Iseedeadpixels

Owryan wrote: »

No. If the father lived with the mother for a year at the time of the birth then he gets guardianship.
Actually it's 9 months before and 3 after.

I had to go the court route to get joint custody of my kids myself.

The law is simple, mother's get automatic guardianship, father's get it under specific circumstances but can get it by other means. There are specific reasons it discriminates on automatic guardianship for all unmarried father's.

As regards access/custody things are slowly changing. Joint custody is now becoming the default agreement unless there are compelling reasons not to grant it. But there is still a major block in how judges award levels of contact in Ireland.

Exactly my point a Father must go to court and ask a judge to see his own child without the Mother being able to say no, such a quality system we have.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

These initiatives/programmes are not challenging past stereotypes. They've decided that females need special attention, even though, females are.... [wish I had that paragraph that Wibbs does about womens' rights and their position in society, but I think you know it. ]

I know the one, paraphrased 'blah blah, church of victimhood, blah blah full retard, blah blah MGTOW are clowns too , etc.' is that the sermon you're referring to?

Owryan

Calhoun wrote: »

Its not there yet, the dogs on the street know that. On another Irish forum before Christmas a guy put up a post looking for advice, he was not allowed have access in his current place of residence over the Christmas period as it did not meet required standards.

The reason he couldn't get a better place to live was due to having to pay the old mortgage, rent and maintenance.

The courts and most of the Irish public system (including hospitals) are inherently and have a bias that favors the woman.

Oh there is a bias, and the change is happening far too slowly but there is no massive public debate about it and that's a problem.

Owryan

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Exactly my point a Father must go to court and ask a judge to see his own child without the Mother being able to say no, such a quality system we have.

Course he can. Guardianship is granted ex parte all the time.

Just not enough

Iseedeadpixels

Owryan wrote: »

Course he can. Guardianship is granted ex parte all the time.

Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

My point was he has no rights unless a judge says so, Women hold all the power.

Owryan

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

My point was he has no rights unless a judge says so, Women hold all the power.

Women hold the power !!!! Seriously!!!!!! Cop the fcuk on. A father can go to court and apply for guardianship in his own respect, without having anything to do with the mother. Whether the judge will grant it is a different story.

Iseedeadpixels

Owryan wrote: »

Women hold the power !!!! Seriously!!!!!! Cop the fcuk on. A father can go to court and apply for guardianship in his own respect, without having anything to do with the mother. Whether the judge will grant it is a different story.

How about read my post correctly, they hold all the power before having to go to court but yeh go ahead and lose the head there :rolleyes:

Yet as you say the judge can say no lol keep proving my point

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know the one, paraphrased 'blah blah, church of victimhood, blah blah full retard, blah blah MGTOW are clowns too , etc.' is that the sermon you're referring to?

Nope. the one where he lists beautifully all that's pretty damn wonderful about being female in the modern age.

py2006

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

They haven't challenged anything because there is no stereotype as I've mentioned previously its their own fault pushing women away from STEM.

Well, they are. That's the whole point of the competition. What do you think the competition was about?

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

You are a very intelligent person El Duderino but you are frustrating to deal with because you see what you want to see and refuse to see whats actually happening.

Look at what's actually happening. I'm arguing on 2 fronts. One with you saying there is no stereotype and one with Silverharp saying the stereotype is justified. Those 2 positions can't both be right but instead of daring to discuss this stuff between yourselves and refining your understanding, you're both coming on to tell men why I'm wrong.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

One with you saying there is no stereotype and one with Silverharp saying the stereotype is justified.

careful if you quote me, I havnt agreed to any stereotypes

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

Unmarried have very little rights its also still not a stereotype which was his reply to post divorce/seperation care.

Ok. The stereotype I was referring to is that men aren't really good carers so the children are better off with the mother. That's the stereotype I'm referring to.

Men having rights or not is an important issue about its beside the point of stereotypes.

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, they are. That's the whole point of the competition. What do you think the competition was about?



Look at what's actually happening. I'm arguing on 2 fronts. One with you saying there is no stereotype and one with Silverharp saying the stereotype is justified. Those 2 positions can't both be right but instead of daring to discuss this stuff between yourselves and refining your understanding, you're both coming on to tell men why I'm wrong.

We were talking about people outside the science community? As I said there is no stereotype inside the science community.

2nd part I was just talking on my behalf not silverharp, I dont speak for him :pac:

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

careful if you quote me, I havnt agreed to any stereotypes

silverharp wrote:

[...]Im not suggesting women cant science just that they will tend to show up in lower numbers especially in the hard sciences.

They can't science as goodly in the important areas as men cos of their woman brains.

It's similar to the assertions you make about how women can't compete with men in leadership in business and politics.

Wibbs

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

careful if you quote me, I havnt agreed to any stereotypes

I wouldn't be concerned S, he'll just misquote or dishonestly try to twist it around to whatever he's having himself. It's what passes for his "argument". It's a debate tactic of many "ists" out there these days.

Though disturbingly off script his "paraphrasing" of me with

Me. Being paraphrased. Earlier wrote:

blah blah, church of victimhood, blah blah full retard, blah blah MGTOW are clowns too , etc.

isn't too far from it. IMHO and demonstrably so, modern "feminism" is a church of victimhood, "MGTOW" are pretty much the same and both regularly go full retard. And in fairness I do blah blah.

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They can't science as goodly in the important areas as men cos of their woman brains.

It's similar to the assertions you make about how women can't compete with men in leadership in business and politics.

Im not suggesting Women cant science....

Where are you getting "cant science as goodly" from that? All he said is there is a lack of numbers.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

I wouldn't be concerned S, he'll just misquote or dishonestly try to twist it around to whatever he's having himself. It's what passes for his "argument". It's a debate tactic of many "ists" out there these days.

Now I'd hate to think a mod would view this post as an attack on the poster and not the post. Sounds kinda like you're calling me dishonest but I'm sure you intended to say my post was dishonest. Because the former would be naughty and a mod told me recently that they're on the lookout for that kind of thing. I'd hate for you to fall foul of that rule.

Does the fact that what I'm describing is exactly the case? One saying the stereotype doesn't exist and The other saying the stereotype is only a natural reflection of biological limitations.

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They can't science as goodly in the important areas as men cos of their woman brains.

Basically true. Men and women are different. Deal with it.

While there may have been a patriarchy at play many moons ago, their certainly isn't now. And yet we still see that men tend to dominate when it comes to innovation.

What exactly do you think is stopping women? Can you explain yourself? Why do the ladies need their hands held?

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

We were talking about people outside the science community? As I said there is no stereotype inside the science community.

Yeah I've been talking about the whole community this whole time. Did you think I was talking about perceptions of men as care givers in the scientific community?

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

2nd part I was just talking on my behalf not silverharp, I dont speak for him

I know you don't speak for anyone else. I was simply pointing out that I'm arguing with 2 different perspectives and . You two could have an interesting discussion to refine your positions because as it stands, they're in opposition to each other.

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

Im not suggesting Women cant science....

I know. I was responding to Silverharp.

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

Where are you getting "cant science as goodly" from that? All he said is there is a lack of numbers.

He said they can't science as well as men and will show up in lower numbers. Isn't that exactly the kind of stereotypes were talking about? So the competition was to gather some examples of innovation and show their value. It makes perfect sense to me.

I asked you earlier what you think the purpose of the competition was. Somewhat do you think it was for?

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I've been talking about the whole community this whole time. Did you think I was talking about perceptions of men as care givers in the scientific community?

Yeh 100% I was thinking that :rolleyes:

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know. I was responding to Silverharp.



He said they can't science as well as men and will show up in lower numbers. Isn't that exactly the kind of stereotypes were talking about? So the competition was to gather some examples of innovation and show their value. It makes perfect sense to me.

I asked you earlier what you think the purpose of the competition was. Somewhat do you think it was for?

He didnt he said "I'm not suggesting they cant science etc" see that not word its the word you seem to have blocked out for some strange reason......

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

Yeh 100% I was thinking that

Genuinely don't know if you thought I was talking about the scientific community or not. I wasn't.

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

He didnt he said "I'm not suggesting they cant science etc" see that not word its the word you seem to have blocked out for some strange reason......

He didn't suggest they can't science, he suggested they can't science as well as men. Which is exactly what I said.

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Genuinely don't know if you thought I was talking about the scientific community or not. I wasn't.



He didn't suggest they can't science, he suggested they can't science as well as men. Which is exactly what I said.

No he suggested they turn up in lower numbers again you are twisting his words, at this stage I'm fully convinced you are trolling, as I'm in work now I wont be bothering with this any further.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They can't science as goodly in the important areas as men cos of their woman brains.

It's similar to the assertions you make about how women can't compete with men in leadership in business and politics.

there are going to be certain areas where men show up more. I have a figure in my head that males take up 80% of engineering places for example, there are implications and predictions that can be made based on that fact alone. No need for stereotypes which is a loaded phrase.

py2006

This thread is about sexism personally experienced or heard of. Can we stick to that rather than one poster telling us how wrong everyone is...

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

No he suggested they turn up in lower numbers again you are twisting his words, at this stage I'm fully convinced you are trolling, as I'm in work now I wont be bothering with this any further.

I’m twisting nothing. He said they will show up in lower numbers because

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

No he suggested they turn up in lower numbers again you are twisting his words, at this stage I'm fully convinced you are trolling, as I'm in work now I wont be bothering with this any further.

I’m twisting nothing. He said they will show up in lower numbers because they’re naturally not as good at it as men. When you’re obviously ignoring the meaning of the post, I think it’s too rich to accuse anyone of trolling.

Naturally you don’t have to reply but it’s a pity that you didn’t answer the question that I asked a few times: If the purpose of the competition wasn’t to challenge the stereotype that women aren’t innovative, then what do you think was it’s purpose?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

there are going to be certain areas where men show up more. I have a figure in my head that males take up 80% of engineering places for example, there are implications and predictions that can be made based on that fact alone. No need for stereotypes which is a loaded phrase.

Which implications and predictions are you referring to? And could the same implications and predictions be made by looking at the make-up of primary teaching places and nursing?

Sleepy

I honestly think that at this stage, one of my favourite films has been ruined for me by this thread...

There's a certain irony to your posting El_Duderino: the character you name yourself for would find your posts as befuddling as the rest of us in this thread.

El_Duderino 09

Sleepy wrote: »

I honestly think that at this stage, one of my favourite films has been ruined for me by this thread...

There's a certain irony to your posting El_Duderino: the character you name yourself for would find your posts as befuddling as the rest of us in this thread.

That’s just like, your opinion, man

Lol. Even asking what posters actually mean is confusing to some. Some don’t seem understand why I can’t just nod and agree with any perceived slight against manhood while being even more confused about why the other side could ever feel slighted.

Some people are easily confused I suppose

Iseedeadpixels

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the purpose of the competition wasn’t to challenge the stereotype that women aren’t innovative, then what do you think was it’s purpose?

To make women look as innovative as men.

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote: »

To make women look as innovative as men.

I want to be fierce careful not to put words in your mouth; are you saying women aren’t as innovative as men and the competition was to create the impression that women are as innovative as men?

Sleepy

On aggregate, it would appear that women as a group, aren't as innovative as men tbh. How many of the big tech disruptors were founded by women?

When looking at study / career choices, despite an education system that sees a higher proportion of women attending third level course, men still dominate the STEM courses that result in the development of new technologies. I'm not by any means trying to disparage Liberal Arts education, it certainly has it's place and value but when such high numbers of young women choose to ignore these study areas, choosing to invest their time (and often vast amounts of their parents, or borrowed, money in the case of the US) in studying the likes of sociology, politics, law, literature, history, not to mention the infamous waste of time that is gender studies etc. it sort of stands to reason that they, as a group, are putting themselves at a disadvantage in terms of being seen as innovative.

At the individual level, this doesn't hold true at all. There's nothing stopping a woman (and arguably there is far more support, both financial and social, available to her on the very basis that she is a woman) pursuing a career in an innovative field and indeed, some of the best software engineers I've worked with have been female. Most women I've personally come across in the software industry, however, tend to opt for career paths in less technical fields where innovation isn't as much of a priority as "soft skills" e.g. project management, implementation, sales, marketing etc.

No doubt this will be an offensive view of reality to a feminist though, I mean, imagine expecting people to accept responsibility for their life choices?!

El_Duderino 09

Sleepy wrote: »

On aggregate, it would appear that women as a group, aren't as innovative as men tbh. How many of the big tech disruptors were founded by women?

When looking at study / career choices, despite an education system that sees a higher proportion of women attending third level course, men still dominate the STEM courses that result in the development of new technologies. I'm not by any means trying to disparage Liberal Arts education, it certainly has it's place and value but when such high numbers of young women choose to ignore these study areas, choosing to invest their time (and often vast amounts of their parents, or borrowed, money in the case of the US) in studying the likes of sociology, politics, law, literature, history, not to mention the infamous waste of time that is gender studies etc. it sort of stands to reason that they, as a group, are putting themselves at a disadvantage in terms of being seen as innovative.

At the individual level, this doesn't hold true at all. There's nothing stopping a woman (and arguably there is far more support, both financial and social, available to her on the very basis that she is a woman) pursuing a career in an innovative field and indeed, some of the best software engineers I've worked with have been female. Most women I've personally come across in the software industry, however, tend to opt for career paths in less technical fields where innovation isn't as much of a priority as "soft skills" e.g. project management, implementation, sales, marketing etc.

No doubt this will be an offensive view of reality to a feminist though, I mean, imagine expecting people to accept responsibility for their life choices?!

Ok. Thanks for the response. It’s frustrating to have these discussions because I spent a day with Iseedeadpixels trying to argue that this belief that women aren’t as innovative as men exists. They insisted no such belief exists, then thank your post which makes that very point.

Assuming your point re men/women in stem is true, how does it stack up with men/women in teaching? Silverharp felt the ratio of men:women made some clear ‘implications and predictions’. They felt those implications and predictions were so obvious that they declined to say what they actually are and whether or not they can be generalised to other professions.

So back to the original point of the discussion, is the competition part of some nefarious plot against men? Or is it just a way to challenge the stereotype that women can’t be innovative by showcasing some real life examples of innovation?

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Thanks for the response. It’s frustrating to have these discussions because I spent a day with Iseedeadpixels trying to argue that this belief that women aren’t as innovative as men exists. They insisted no such belief exists, then thank your post which makes that very point.

Assuming your point re men/women in stem is true, how does it stack up with men/women in teaching? Silverharp felt the ratio of men:women made some clear ‘implications and predictions’. They felt those implications and predictions were so obvious that they declined to say what they actually are and whether or not they can be generalised to other professions.

So back to the original point of the discussion, is the competition part of some nefarious plot against men? Or is it just a way to challenge the stereotype that women can’t be innovative by showcasing some real life examples of innovation?

I thanked it because he posted what I was saying about them not choosing STEM which was my whole arguement but carry on.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Thanks for the response. It’s frustrating to have these discussions because I spent a day with Iseedeadpixels trying to argue that this belief that women aren’t as innovative as men exists. They insisted no such belief exists, then thank your post which makes that very point.

Assuming your point re men/women in stem is true, how does it stack up with men/women in teaching? Silverharp felt the ratio of men:women made some clear ‘implications and predictions’. They felt those implications and predictions were so obvious that they declined to say what they actually are and whether or not they can be generalised to other professions.

So back to the original point of the discussion, is the competition part of some nefarious plot against men? Or is it just a way to challenge the stereotype that women can’t be innovative by showcasing some real life examples of innovation?

if I have to spell it out for you :rolleyes: , less women studying science and engineering mean less women working on patentable ideas and technology, that is at least one basic cap. You keep seeming to have a problem with pointing out these kinds of facts but you never explain what your issue is. should we all just revert to saying "you go girl!" slogans and not think much more about it, its probably the patriarchy's fault?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So back to the original point of the discussion, is the competition part of some nefarious plot against men? Or is it just a way to challenge the stereotype that women can’t be innovative by showcasing some real life examples of innovation?

TBH, the only people I ever hear making stereotypes about women are feminists, other women, and these organizations. I haven't heard a man making a stereotype about (or downplaying) a woman's ability in a very long time. Generally, the comments I hear from men (not including internet blogs, or such) refer to the minority of women entering certain fields (and working to the top), rather than their inability to perform in said fields.

Instead, we hear about the need for gender quota's, that women are sensitive, that women need a good cry, etc etc. All stereotypical remarks to reinforce that women are different from men, but at the same time, should be treated the same.

IMHO I figure it's these kinds of organizations with their focus on women's 'issues' that promote and encourage stereotypes to continue. They're not exactly trying hard to allow men the same benefits as women and vice versa. If the competitions/initiatives were open to both genders with a balance in the encouragement given... Then I could see an effort to remove the stereotypes. Instead, they're just reinforcing the stereotypes to exist, promoted by them, but passing the responsibility off on to men.

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

I thanked it because he posted what I was saying about them not choosing STEM which was my whole arguement but carry on.

Ha. Moving the goalposts much?

That was one of your points alright. You were also adamant that the belief that women aren’t as innovative as men, doesn’t exist. You had no problem arguing the point with me, but didn’t feel the point was relevant when another poster makes it.

In truth I think it was convenient to argue against the belief because it suited the case against the competition. Absent that you dropped the line of argument. ‘Oh ED, so dishonest etc.’

Carry on indeed

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Moving the goalposts much?

That was one of your points alright. You were also adamant that the belief that women aren’t as innovative as men, doesn’t exist. You had no problem arguing the point with me, but didn’t feel the point was relevant when another poster makes it.

In truth I think it was convenient to argue against the belief because it suited the case against the competition. Absent that you dropped the line of argument. ‘Oh ED, so dishonest etc.’

Carry on indeed

How is it moving the goal posts when I explained why I thanked it, I dont have to 100% agree with someone to thank a post, you keep twisting peoples words to suit your agenda, god knows how many times I had to explain the whole STEM thing :rolleyes:

El_D, considering that I have responded to your points about stereotypes, could you answer my own question from two pages back?

"Now. Perhaps you can show me where exactly women are being actively discriminated against in our modern western world to the extent that these kinds of initiatives are needed to raise awareness? "

Not about discrimination in the past, but the area's where it occurs today. Not stereotypes... Actual discrimination which prevents females from competing with males as equals.

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

How is it moving the goal posts when I explained why I thanked it, I dont have to 100% agree with someone to thank a post, you keep twisting peoples words to suit your agenda, god knows how many times I had to explain the whole STEM thing

I know they're are more men in stem than women. And to extrapolate on Silverharp's post the implications and predictions from that fact are that women aren't as suited to that area because it suits that argument to simplify it to that degree.

I think that's why nobody is willing to address whether the 'predictions and implications' that are, oh so obvious, actually exist. And if they do exist, are they generalisable to any other area such as teaching and nursing.

I presume the low numbers of men in nursing and teaching doesn't carry the same 'implications and predictions'. It would be helpful if Silverharp were to be explicit about what these implications and predictions are.

I would make a prediction of my own that the reasons for low numbers of men in those professions is a complex mix of social and cultural factors and doesn't imply any lack of ability of aptitude, and we should work towards encouraging men into those professions. But women are just not as good at innovation and they should accept it and get over it.

Has anyone found a good reason to be outraged about the innovation competition apart from 'where's the men's version'?